I just picked up V1 of this lens from B&H in LN condition for $330. I don't care about the weather sealing and from what I've read the optics are identical to the V2 so I decided to save some $$. These photos are about as snapshoty as you can get. The lens arrived an hour ago so I went into the backyard for some testing. It's funny how some reviewers say this lens is big. It's so much smaller than my Nikon 50 AF-S 1.8 G I also realize it's all relative. I do hear the "rattlesnake" noise some reviewers described when the lens is shot stopped down but I can't imagine why that would bother anyone. I also read the V2 has quicker AF but I don't see any issues with focus speed on this one for what I intend to use it for. In other words, I don't see myself using it for any fast action. I read this lens has soft corners when shot wide open but that's exactly what I want for candid people shots, portraits, and street scenes. When used for landscapes I'd be stopping down to F8 or so anyways so that's not an issue.
I'm trying to flesh out this system after migrating from Z without breaking the bank. Especially since I'm heading west very shortly on a road trip. So here's where I'm at right now.
Pan-Leica 9 1.7
Olympus 17 1.8 V1
Pan-Leica 25 1.4 V1
Sigma 56 1.4
OM 90 3.5 Macro
Panasonic 14-140 ll
Olympus 100-400 V1
Should be good to go
Gary
One of my all time favorite lenses. I go back and forth with other lenses, but this one I just keep coming back to, and every time I'm amazed at how good it is.
petersm59 wrote:
One of my all time favorite lenses. I go back and forth with other lenses, but this one I just keep coming back to, and every time I'm amazed at how good it is.
Glad to hear that. So far so good. It doesn't seem to have that crunchiness that I get from my 14-140. The images just look "fuller" if that makes any sense. Hard to describe. Thanks for the input !
sum1sgrampa wrote:
Glad to hear that. So far so good. It doesn't seem to have that crunchiness that I get from my 14-140. The images just look "fuller" if that makes any sense. Hard to describe. Thanks for the input !
All of the PL lenses have that look, very subtle yet very sharp and dimensional. On some of the OM Pro lenses, especially the 2.8 zooms, they have that crunch look. It's really stark if you compare the 40-150 2.8 against the PL 35-100 2.8.
What it reminds me of is how my M and R lenses used to render on film.
Any issues with excessive purple fringing? I don't remember which review but someone said it cannot be fixed in the post (may also be sample variation though). I like PL/Lumix lenses - they seems to be smaller than their Oly counterpart.
In extreme circumstances almost any lens will do that. With this lens, it happens rarely, and when it does it is always fixable. I’ve had a few lenses where this was a big issue, but this lens is not one of them.
And yes, sample variation is real. My version 1 copy was worse.
Amol Thorat wrote:
Any issues with excessive purple fringing? I don't remember which review but someone said it cannot be fixed in the post (may also be sample variation though). I like PL/Lumix lenses - they seems to be smaller than their Oly counterpart.
petersm59 wrote:
In extreme circumstances almost any lens will do that. With this lens, it happens rarely, and when it does it is always fixable. I’ve had a few lenses where this was a big issue, but this lens is not one of them.
And yes, sample variation is real. My version 1 copy was worse.
Not in extreme circumstances. Seeing similar reports of excessive fringing on Reddit too. Regardless, there is a mk II for sale near me, I am tempted to get that and see how it goes. I would have ideally liked the Oly 20 f1.4 pro but those are rare birds. This would do fine in the meanwhile.
Amol Thorat wrote:
Not in extreme circumstances. Seeing similar reports of excessive fringing on Reddit too. Regardless, there is a mk II for sale near me, I am tempted to get that and see how it goes. I would have ideally liked the Oly 20 f1.4 pro but those are rare birds. This would do fine in the meanwhile.
*** if anyone saw my original response below please disregard. I realized I shot with the Digital Converter on somehow so I removed those photos. So I went back out and re-shot. It now appears pretty severe wide open and pretty much completely gone stopped down. ***
Being that I don't consider myself a landscape photographer this is probably the first time I've ever typed the words "purple fringing"
After reading your post I went into the backyard and shot this bare tree. It's very overcast right now so I have no idea if this is the proper scenario. Honestly I'm not even sure what is acceptable or what to look for but it appears pretty severe to me wide open and better stopped down. I have no idea how this compares to other lenses in this category. If I'm shooting a landscape I'd most likely be at f5.6 or f8 where it should improve further I suppose. On top of that, my primary use for this lens will not be landscape. I could try it but too lazy to go back outside
sum1sgrampa wrote:
Being that I don't consider myself a landscape photographer this is probably the first time I've ever typed the words "purple fringing"
After reading your post I went into the backyard and shot this bare tree. It's very overcast right now so I have no idea if this is the proper scenario. Honestly I'm not even sure what is acceptable or what to look for but it appears pretty severe to me wide open and better stopped down. I have no idea how this compares to other lenses in this category. If I'm shooting a landscape I'd most likely be at f5.6 or f8 where it should improve further I suppose. On top of that, my primary use for this lens will not be landscape. I could try it but too lazy to go back outside ...Show more →
Thanks for doing this quick test! Appreciate it. Your observation matches with a couple of reviews I saw. Looks like the mkII retains the optics but updates the AF and weathersealing. Good enough. I much prefer the weather sealed lenses. P.S. I have the non-Leica f1.7 variety and it seems to have less purple fringing. I will try posting some photos.
Amol Thorat wrote:
Thanks for doing this quick test! Appreciate it. Your observation matches with a couple of reviews I saw. Looks like the mkII retains the optics but updates the AF and weathersealing. Good enough. I much prefer the weather sealed lenses. P.S. I have the non-Leica f1.7 variety and it seems to have less purple fringing. I will try posting some photos.
Be sure to check out the proper photos above. Huge difference from my original screw up
sum1sgrampa wrote:
Being that I don't consider myself a landscape photographer this is probably the first time I've ever typed the words "purple fringing"
After reading your post I went into the backyard and shot this bare tree. It's very overcast right now so I have no idea if this is the proper scenario. Honestly I'm not even sure what is acceptable or what to look for but it appears pretty severe to me wide open and better stopped down. I have no idea how this compares to other lenses in this category. If I'm shooting a landscape I'd most likely be at f5.6 or f8 where it should improve further I suppose. On top of that, my primary use for this lens will not be landscape. I could try it but too lazy to go back outside ...Show more →
Yup, that's one of those situations where you'll see it. Take any of your other lenses and see if they handle it better. I'll wait. Probably not, right?
And yes, you can fix that if you shot it in raw. Now, would you really be shooting a landscape photo at 1.4 or 2.2? Probably not. More like 5.6 or 8, and in that case, how does it look? You might still get some, but not as much.
A fast lens of an focal length is always a compromise. The OM 25 f1.2 has pretty bad LOCA. For a more well corrected lens, the OM 25 f1.8 seems to be the best bet, but it renders very differently than the PL. I have both, I like both, but the PL is just so much more natural looking. Ultimately, you pick what you can live with.
petersm59 wrote:
Yup, that's one of those situations where you'll see it. Take any of your other lenses and see if they handle it better. I'll wait. Probably not, right?
And yes, you can fix that if you shot it in raw. Now, would you really be shooting a landscape photo at 1.4 or 2.2? Probably not. More like 5.6 or 8, and in that case, how does it look? You might still get some, but not as much.
A fast lens of an focal length is always a compromise. The OM 25 f1.2 has pretty bad LOCA. For a more well corrected lens, the OM 25 f1.8 seems to be the best bet, but it renders very differently than the PL. I have both, I like both, but the PL is just so much more natural looking. Ultimately, you pick what you can live with. ...Show more →
I did shoot in Raw. Just ran through DxO Pure Raw, no other adjustments. Not sure if you took a look at the new photos I posted. Huge difference and I see no issue at all at 5.6 which as you say, that's where I'd most likely be shooting. Just to be clear, we're on the same page
sum1sgrampa wrote:
I did shoot in Raw. Just ran through DxO Pure Raw, no other adjustments. Not sure if you took a look at the new photos I posted. Huge difference and I see no issue at all at 5.6 which as you say, that's where I'd most likely be shooting. Just to be clear, we're on the same page
I also realize it's all relative. I do hear the "rattlesnake" noise some reviewers described when the lens is shot stopped down but I can't imagine why that would bother anyone. I also read the V2 has quicker AF but I don't see any issues with focus speed on this one for what I intend to use it for. In other words, I don't see myself using it for any fast action. I read this lens has soft corners when shot wide open but that's exactly what I want for candid people shots, portraits, and street scenes. When used for landscapes I'd be stopping down to F8 or so anyways so that's not an issue. 
